Spinal Cord Injury Community Survey: A National, Comprehensive Study to Portray the Lives of Canadians with Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To better understand service-related needs and the current situation of persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) living in the community, a more comprehensive approach for studying their interrelationships (needs vs community living outcomes) is greatly needed. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development, design, and findings of a Canadian survey portraying the life situation of people with SCI. METHOD: The SCI Community Survey covers demographics, health, SCI-specific needs, community participation, employment, quality of life, health care utilization, and overall health rating. A total of 1,549 persons with SCI completed the survey (Web or phone) between May 2011 and August 2012. RESULTS: Some major expressed needs for services to support community living are met to a great extent for a substantial proportion of people with SCI. Complications remain highly prevalent for some health issues, including pain, sexual dysfunction, and musculoskeletal disorders. The extent of community participation based on values and preferences varies tremendously among daily activities and social roles. Some dimensions of quality of life are rated positively (eg, family life) while others are greatly disrupted (eg, sex life and physical health). Most of these findings vary significantly between people with traumatic and nontraumatic lesions. CONCLUSION: This survey is the first in Canada and among the first worldwide to draw a comprehensive picture of major aspects of the lives of people with SCI including service needs. The results will help to determine the links between various aspects of community living and guide service providers and policy makers in focusing on major issues to enhance quality of life after SCI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".